linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH] gpio: viperboard: remove platform_set

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Message-ID: <CAMpxmJX-ZuoYerdL-EOOb7TKLcuj++jmbUcda-Dg2nnomLfmfw@mail.gmail.com>
Date:   Tue, 27 Jul 2021 15:32:32 +0200
From:   Bartosz Golaszewski <bgolaszewski@...libre.com>
To:     Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@...iqon.com>
Cc:     linux-gpio <linux-gpio@...r.kernel.org>,
        LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
        Linus Walleij <linus.walleij@...aro.org>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] gpio: viperboard: remove platform_set_drvdata() call in probe

On Wed, Jul 21, 2021 at 4:13 PM Alexandru Ardelean
<aardelean@...iqon.com> wrote:
>
> On Wed, 21 Jul 2021 at 16:16, Bartosz Golaszewski
> <bgolaszewski@...libre.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Wed, Jul 7, 2021 at 3:51 PM Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@...iqon.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > The platform_set_drvdata() call is only useful if we need to retrieve back
> > > the private information.
> > > Since the driver doesn't do that, it's not useful to have it.
> > >
> > > This change removes it.
> > >
> > > Signed-off-by: Alexandru Ardelean <aardelean@...iqon.com>
> > > ---
> > >  drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c | 6 +-----
> > >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 5 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c
> > > index c301c1d56dd2..98ddd6590362 100644
> > > --- a/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c
> > > +++ b/drivers/gpio/gpio-viperboard.c
> > > @@ -422,12 +422,8 @@ static int vprbrd_gpio_probe(struct platform_device *pdev)
> > >         vb_gpio->gpiob.direction_input = vprbrd_gpiob_direction_input;
> > >         vb_gpio->gpiob.direction_output = vprbrd_gpiob_direction_output;
> > >         ret = devm_gpiochip_add_data(&pdev->dev, &vb_gpio->gpiob, vb_gpio);
> > > -       if (ret < 0) {
> > > +       if (ret < 0)
> > >                 dev_err(vb_gpio->gpiob.parent, "could not add gpio b");
> > > -               return ret;
> > > -       }
> > > -
> > > -       platform_set_drvdata(pdev, vb_gpio);
> > >
> > >         return ret;
> > >  }
> > > --
> > > 2.31.1
> > >
> >
> > The log is not really needed, we'll get an error message from gpiolib
> > core. Can you remove it while you're at it and just return the result
> > of devm_gpiochip_add_data()?
>
> I thought about removing it, but in this driver there are 2
> devm_gpiochip_add_data() calls.
> It registers 2 GPIOchip instances.
> Which is not so easy to see in this patch.
>
> First one says "could not add gpio a"  and this one says "could not add gpio b".
> I hesitated to remove either of these.
>
> In this case, it may be a little helpful to know which GPIOchip failed
> to be registered.
>
> But I don't mind removing them both.
> Whatever you prefer. I'm undecided.
>

The core code will still use the label for the error message which
says 'a' or 'b' already. I think we can remove it.